So, three weeks ago, it was reported by an outraged media that Emma Cornell’s dad had died, and that BB producers were withholding the information from her.
Debate raged: she should be given the chance to decide for herself whether she wants to be told(?!); the producers of Big Brother have gone too far this time; if it was me, I’d want to know…
Most of this debate sought to blame the producers of the show for a decision that was made by the people who are most likely to know Emma’s feelings about the matter. The idea that a bunch of television producers, op ed columnists and callers to talkback radio would be more capable of knowing what was “best” for Emma was quite disturbing.
A few voices in the debate were more accurate in apportioning blame, asking what kind of person goes on to a reality show knowing that a member of their family might die, and agrees that she’d rather not find out, lest it affect the “experience”. But then again, while this is closer to my reaction, it still verges on substituting one’s own experience for another’s, and then being upset when their reactions don’t match what I think would be mine. Emma did not have a close relationship with her father. Who are we to insist that this will damage her, when she didn’t believe it would.
The debate was never as simple as “it should be up to Emma to decide”; the point was whether or not she should be told in the first place. While there was plenty of discussion about the effects of not telling her, little thought was given to the effects of telling her, and having the nation condemn her for not choosing to leave the House anyway. Should this have been a consideration? Or is it too far outside what most of us feel to even consider?
But whatever the decision of everyone involved, it is hard not to be completely appalled at the decision on Saturday night to tell Emma the night before she was evicted. Emma was evicted with 76% of the vote, and I do not believe that this was not known to producers on Saturday. Make the decision to tell her, or make the decision to leave it up to her family’s discretion. Don’t leave it for three weeks, then do it just before her eviction, just so that you can get one episode’s worth of footage of her reaction.
This whole sorry episode brings up many ethical dilemmas as well as many no-brainers. The rights of families to make decisions for people who cannot make it themselves; the ethics of “choosing” not to let death get in the way of life in a way that seems to go against the seriousness and unpredictability that usually accompanies it; the morality of not finding the death of one’s father so devastating that life cannot go on uninterrupted…
What does everyone else think? It’s CC10 – the Big Brother debate we had to have!
Emma: has fake boobs, dead father
Have a feeling that this is not satire.
I haven’t been paying much attention to the whole thing, as I don’t watch BB, but initially I thought not telling her was pretty off.
Then I heard that she had said prior that she didn’t want to be told, and I thought, well it’s her call. Wouldn’t be my choice, but they had issues and bad blood, and who am I to judge?
But for the producers of the show to tell her on air is just so cynical and heartless that I am really appalled. I feel Pollyannaish for being appalled, given the deterioration in ethics generally that surrounds the festering swamp of reality TV, but appalled I am none the less.
I actually gave up on it this year because of the incident with the baby task. I’m more or less in agreement with tigtog – telling her on air is pretty rank.
If the producers anticipated his death while she was on the show enough to discuss with her how she wanted to have it handled, then I imagine they also anticipated how much overexcitement they could stir up if & when he did die. And I am cynical enough to believe that the sick father is the reason they selected this contestant in the first place.
That, and the fake boobs, I’d say.
I think I didn’t make myself clear enough. They didn’t tell her on air, but they did tell her while she was in the house, knowing she was leaving the next day, so that her reaction was about her dad’s death, as well as the fact that it was three weeks ago and no-one told her.
I think they should have told her immediately, or not at all. Not “respect the wishes of the family” until the day before she goes to get the best of both worlds.
Sorry if I caused more outrage than necessary.
That’s seems an astonishingly thoughtless photo caption. Why do you even need to mentions she’s had cosmetic surgery?
I’m sure you’re right that BB had a fair idea it would be Emma going by the end of the week, so I can only guess that they thought it would be kinder to give her some notice (family wishes or no), rather than allow her to come out all happy–as the housemates generally seem to, anticipating their big night on stage with thousands of fans and the whirlwhind of media and parties etc–and then break the news a couple of minutes after her eviction, and then ask her if she still wanted to go on stage at that point. That kind of seems more cruel to me–more of an emotioanl rollercoaster surely. After her brother told her the news, she could have asked to leave immediately but she chose to stay, presumably in the hope that she was not in fact going to be evicted.
Emma said how proud her dad had been of her for going on the show, that he had spent the last few weeks of his life watching her. Who’s to say that was not something special, a few happy moments in the end for him, to see her up there on the small screen, to anticipate what good things might unfold in her life from her appearance on this telly show? And if you have a family member with a terminal illness–who’s to say you must avoid doing things that may take you physically away from that person? People still work, travel, go on telly shows. Life goes on. It is a bit appalling to me that people might suggest she chose fleeting fame over sitting by her dad’s deathbed, when it may even have helped him, to have the comfort of seeing her perform, happy amongst her peers, and popular and so on, or even just to see her 24/7 if they had not spent so much time together in recent years.
Having said all that, I am certainly no fan of Emma, having not forgiven her for handing out all the cleaning duties to the female housemates while claiming it’s women’s work.
Are you going to jump on her for having dyed hair too? Or is dyed hair some lesser crime than fake boobs?
She knew what she was in for, she requested not to be told if her father died (make of that what you will) but what has that got to do with her appearance? Isn’t it the contents, not the package, that counts? (Not that I know anything about that either as BB isn’t on our regular TV list).
Big Brother as it exists on Channel 10. It all seems a long way from 1984….
Cheers…
I think you’re protesting too much, David.
Since you don’t watch BB, you probably don’t know about Krystal and her mum last year both getting boob jobs before appearing on the show. It’s, shall we say, a continuing theme, and usually provides much food for thought among the housemates.
I don’t know who you are referring to, David, but if it’s me: I didn’t attack her for her appearance.
Obviously some people have taken the caption at face value, despite the nuance and ambivalence in the rest of my post. For those who chose not to think a bit before having a go, it was an attempt at mocking the coverage of Emma and her story – mock outrage, and irrelevant mentions of her fake boobs and status of “former model”.
Comment crossed with Anna’s – I meant to add as well that the caption was obviously ironic.
I was at my father’s hospital bedside when he died in 1983, he was 55 and I was 20 and wanted to be anywhere else. Also although it was inevitable we didn’t know when it would happen. I can understand not wanting to be told as it gives the show opportunity to exploit grief, which they took anyway.
I’m sorry I didn’t get the irony in your caption.
Her call, her choice.
But really, WGAF about these self-obsessed douchebags anyway? It’s another confected controversy designed to generate interest in a format about as interesting as the colour brown, and people desperate for a brief glimmer of fame (except Lefty Tim).
The caption is about as ironic as that Alanna whatsername song about rain on your wedding day. It’s just snark dressed up as irony.
Yes.
I don’t agree, David, but since when has a dash of snark been a bad thing in a blog?
There was endless carry-on about this on local radio here when it first broke. I understand that the likelihood of her father’s death during her BB involvement was known and you can assume that she thought about it in advance.
Why? Well because all contestants are asked about that sort of contingency before they go on the show, or so we were told on local radio.
I incline to what Gianna said about telling her just before she left.
On local radio they had talkback about similar experiences and you wouldn’t believe how much variety there was. One example was a couple who had just lobbed into there honeymoon in Fiji. They came back and were glad to. Another was a man who had just landed with his wife and kids in Switzerland for a long-planned holiday. Their brother didn’t tell them, which was fine, except that we only heard about it from the brother.
People generally hold strong views about this one. What I found most appalling was that most people were quite certain about what other people should do or not do without the possibility of walking in their shoes.
I’m smugly proud to say that I have never watched Big Brother and have never felt the slightest inclination to watch it.
It means I get intrigued by obscure comments, as when I read about ‘the incident with the baby task.’ WTF? Did participants have to make one or what?
Sometimes I feel culturally deprived.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21660753-5012840,00.html
This is not an ethical challenge.
Father’s wish was not for her to know – producers adhered to that as I understand it.
End of story.
Thanks Kim … somehow I still don’t feel the urge to watch though
Kim wrote:
I like a bit of snark with my blog, but it’s much more fun when your snark-object has a chance to defend themselves. All I’m saying is that if your ironic snark just comes across as a bit of cattiness, you’ve failed. It’s like “new laddism” was in the 90s – supposedly ironic, definitely old-school mysogonistic, but plausibly deniable. I didn’t like it much then and I don’t now.
David, you’ve completely failed to address my point, which was that read in conjunction with the post that accompanies it, then any fair reading would have taken it as being more than just snark. You’ve either been very unfair in commenting on one tiny aspect of my post without reading the rest, or you have read the rest, and didn’t care to give me any sort of credit despite that.
Frankly, I don’t care if you were offended, but I am almost certain that Emma was not. Besides, it’s the internet – she has all the opportunity in the world to respond.
I tried this one out tonight with my wife, my brother and his wife. They all thought Emma should have been told. When I pointed out that she had had an opportunity to state her wishes in the eventuality of her father dying when she entered the house, and that it was her father’s wish that she be not told, they didn’t change their minds.
They said that her father’s wishes could be taken on board but it really wasn’t up to him, because it was the survivors who would have to live with whatever decision was made.
As to Emma’s wishes, they said that she couldn’t possibly know beforehand what the reality of her father’s death would be. So the only choice that mattered was the one which she should have been able to make when it was real rather than hypothetical.
Also she could not have foreseen what it would be like having the matter discussed by the whole nation with her not knowing.
I was impressed by their arguments and think there is merit in what they say.
Anna Winter
I appreciated ‘both sides’ but ultimately sided with the show’s producer’s decision. However, for Catherime Lumby to perk up that this episode of the shows urgent need as a forum for discussing ethics was appalling. This situation, like all BB situations, was carefully manipulated by the show’s producers and advertisers.
The ongoing pimping for capitalist junk-food companies engaged in by CultiStudi ‘academics’ should surely be the subject of university “ethics” committees.
As I understand it the producers knew about Kate’s miscarriage when they set the baby task. In other words they set the task *because* of her incident and got the reaction they were hoping for. Its quite possible they specifically chose her because of the miscarriage so they could inflict a little emotional torture in the quest for ratings.
I know I’m undermining my own advice but we have to stop talking about this stuff. BB has long since passed any intrisic interest it may have once had and now their entire marketing strategy is to commit grevious breaches of anything that people might consider ethics in the hope that people will discuss it, thus reviving their ratings. Every time we mention it we’re helping them achieve their goals.
She looks pretty hot so all is good!